If you are involved in a car accident, it can be traumatic physically and mentally. While there are many ways in which car accidents can occur, with varying degrees of severity, what can seem like a simple fender bender can end up turning into so much more.
Being rear-ended is quite common and can sometimes be easily judged and compensated through insurance. You can sustain serious injury from this type of accident, but what happens when your injuries are challenged? Being honest and upfront with both your personal injury lawyer and your medical practitioner is a key factor to being compensated fairly and promptly.
The Insurance companies have a due process that challenges the validity of claims, and ensuring that yours is based on fact will only aid in gaining a successful outcome.
In the case of Gill v. Sivaranjan, 2015 ONSC 841, the true severity of the plaintiff's injuries were challenged in a claim against a driver who rear-ended him. He claimed to suffer from Chronic Pain Disorder (CPD) after his accident, but the defense felt that his alleged injuries did not stem from the accident in question.
The Ontario Motorist Protection Plan dictates that the owner of a vehicle will not be held liable for non-pecuniary damages in an accident, except if it leads to death, or permanent serious disfigurement or impairment.
The Appeals Judge assessed all the evidence in the case, specifically the medical testimony offered by experts from both the plaintiff and defence team respectively, and had the following opinion and ruling.
The patient's medical complaint is subjective and is the foundation for his physician's assessment. So in deciding whether or not to award damages for this injury, a plaintiff's credibility has to be examined. His doctor's initial assessment diagnosed him with chronic pain disorder based mostly on his account of his physical state.
There was however, other evidence brought forward from another physician, who did a full health assessment of the plaintiff before he was diagnosed with CPD and he was found to be in good health; with no muscle discomfort or pain.
He waited more than two years after the accident to seek any physiotherapy and referred to supposed treatments he received that were not documented and could not be validated.
Although the plaintiff complained of continuous pain and discomfort, his actions dictated otherwise.
An assessment done before he was diagnosed showed that he was fine, and within the time after the accident, eight months specifically, he took no action to seek medical attention from his physician or treatment for his ailments."
This can only lead to the conclusion that this present proclaimed injury was not a direct result of the accident. Honesty and culpability are essential when seeking compensation.
At Gluckstein Lawyers, we pride ourselves on possessing compassion, empathy and the experience necessary to represent you. We offer a free initial assessment, and stand in your corner to help you get your rightful compensation.
Subscribe to our Newsletter